Homilies

Back to Homilies menu

   My text for today is considered by some to be the signature of Matthew the evangelist. For this gospel is addressing a community which is bitterly divided between two factions: one group remained attached to the traditions and practices of Judaism; the other group saw the way of the future in a clean break with the past, which would make possible a mission to the Gentiles.

In the final verse of his Parable Discourse Matthew offers a mediating position: his characterization of the Christian scribe compares him to a householder whose treasure includes both what is new and what is old.

Our church is caught in the tension between the old and the new. But instead of cherishing what is old and seeking to preserve it for the future, many in the church seem to regard the old as an obstacle to progress which must either be removed or else simply allowed to die.

The Book of Common Prayer, which was the crowning achievement of the English Reformation, has been virtually suppressed, on the principle that in a new age only new rites should have a place.

An elderly friend of mine told me some years ago that he had raised with his pastor the question of arrangements for his funeral. In the course of the discussion my friend acknowledged that he wasn’t sure whether, when the time came, he would want to be buried in the Anglican Church. If he thought that this confession would elicit some expression of pastoral concern, he was to be severely disappointed; it was met with stony silence.

When King Rehoboam rejected the moderate counsel of the old men, preferring instead the radical advice of the young men who had grown up with him, the result was a schism between Israel and Judah (1 Kings 12:1-17). In today’s Old Testament lesson the trickery by which Jacob cheats his brother Esau out of their father’s blessing (Genesis 27:1-45) comes back upon his own head, as he is tricked by his cousin Laban into serving him 14 years to obtain Rachel’s hand in marriage, instead of the 7 years on which they had agreed (Genesis 29:15-30).

In our dealing with those with whom we disagree, trickery and manipulation may bring us quickly to the goal which we intend, but always at a cost. The alternative is open and honest dialogue. “Dialogue” was the buzz word when I began the study of theology 45 years ago. One of my professors, Father Gus Weigel, was a pioneer in Roman Catholic ecumenism, and he brought the distinguished Protestant theologian Robert McAfee Brown to speak to us seminarians, something which was quite unusual back in the 60’s.

Without open and honest dialogue there is bound to be, sooner or later, bitter confrontation. We see this in our church, and we see it in the world. Dialogue aims at a meeting of minds, and if it is sincerely and perseveringly pursued, it may lead to a union of hearts as well.

June 19, 2005

back to top